RESUMEN
In addition to the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2, bacterial co-infection plays an essential role in the incidence and progression of SARS-CoV-2 infections by increasing the severity of infection, as well as increasing disease symptoms, death rate and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The current study was conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, among hospitalized COVID-19 patients to see the prevalence of bacterial co-infections and the AMR rates among different isolated bacteria. Clinical samples for the laboratory diagnosis were collected from 1165 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, of which 423 were found to be positive for various bacterial infections. Most of the isolated bacteria were Gram-negative rods (n = 366), followed by Gram-positive cocci (n = 57). A significant association (p < 0.05) was noted between the hospitalized COVID-19 patients and bacterial co-infections. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) showed high resistance against tetracycline (61.7%), Streptococcus pyogenes against penicillin (100%), E. coli against Amp-clavulanic acid (88.72%), Klebsiella pneumoniae against ampicillin (100%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa against ciprofloxacin (75.40%). Acinetobacter baumannii was 100% resistant to the majority of tested antibiotics. The prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) was 14.7%. The topmost symptoms of >50% of COVID-19 patients were fever, fatigue, dyspnea and chest pain with a significant association (p < 0.05) in bacterial co-infected patients. The current study results showed a comparatively high prevalence of AMR, which may become a severe health-related issue in the future. Therefore, strict compliance of antibiotic usage and employment of antibiotic stewardship programs at every public or private institutional level are recommended.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We analyse the distribution of ESBL infections in Dammam Medical Complex, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia with respect to patient demographics, wards, infection site, bacterial species, and antibiotic resistance. We also gauged hospital staff understanding of ESBLs, the procedures in place to identify, treat and infections containing. METHODS: Hospital records from 2016 were analysed and 352 ESBL from several samples types were identified using VITEK® 2 system and by phenotypic confirmation using a disk diffusion test. HCWs attitudes and knowledge were assessed using a paper questionnaire. RESULTS: The percentage of ESBL isolates were Klebsiella pneumoniae(n=148; 42.1%) or Escherichia coli(n=176; 50%), Proteus mirabilis(n=7; 2%), Morganella morganii(n=13; 3.7%), Enterobacter (n=7; 2%) and Citrobacter freundii (n=1; 0.3%). Overall tigecycline susceptibility was 82.2%, however P. mirabilis and M. morganii isolates were uniformly resistant and K. pneumoniae susceptibility levels were significantly lower than for E. coli in urine samples (72.3% v 100%; Chi square=13.76, p=0.0002); for blood samples there was also apparently higher resistance among K. pneumoniae isolates. Overall susceptibility to the carbapenems imipenem, meropenem and ertapenam was high. There were overall high levels of uncertainty among healthcare workers on hospital policies on reporting or prescribing with respect to ESBL-expressing infections. CONCLUSIONS: ESBL control strategies should consider variations among sample types, wards, and antibiotic resistance variability. There is a need to specifically address staff training and communication procedures for infection prevention and control with respect to ESBLs.